Will we have a +1 next year?

TheDude

Listening to these guys on ESPN(I know, they are idiots right?) it sounds like there is some push for a +1 system and not a traditional playoff. I would think the Big 12 commissioner and the college presidents probably have a great deal to say about that but what is everyone else's thoughts? Some of the ESPN guys were saying that they like the current system because it causes controversy, and gives them something to talk about. Is it more important to fans to have a definitive winner? Will it take another split title this year, for them to make a change? Curious to hear what everyone else thinks.

__________________
I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. That, or Duder. His Dudeness. Or El Duderino, if, you know, you're not into the whole brevity thing...

ScottyB28

The bottom line is, we need a playoff.

__________________

lsutiga

Good question......I'm glad I'm not the only one confused. The last I heard was there'd be a playoff type scenario with the top 4 teams. The two winners would play in a +1 NC Game. Not sure what year it would begin though.

Luv4LSU

I was watching the show College Football Live and they did a poll on the same question you are asking. If I'm not mistaken the majority (+80%) said they would rather have an 8 team playoff rather than a +1 or the BCS system in place now.

I am with the 8 team playoff. It would actually show who the real top 4 teams are. I think a problem with this would be that most conferences, including ours, would have to eliminate the Conference Championship game to include extra games on a schedule. Another problem I would see is the fact that it would cause all these teams in the NCAA to broaden their schedule lengths to accommodate the playoff. Or on the other hand there would only be only conference games and no Out-of conference to schedule.

I sure am for a playoff cause I can't stand it when ESPN and all other networks talk about the 'shared' title in 2003!

...what say you?

__________________

lsutiga

Easy.....start the season earlier.

khounba

One of the reasons they wont go with a playoff system now is because they say the season would be too long. Personally I think it's a sorry excuse, but I doubt they would want to start the season earlier for the same reason.

A better option would be to cut out some of the time between championship matches and bowl games.

Luv4LSU

LOL, it still has to work around academics. That still is #1 in college

__________________

LSUGradin99

Next year? Not possible. The current contract lasts until 2011 or 2012 I think. The +1 would not happen until then.

__________________
Geaux Tigers!

True TigerForums babes don't name their kids after rival quarterbacks.

lsutiga

That is THE best description of what it would do.

I would be much more comfortable with a #5 team not get a shot isn't as bad as a #3 team.

kcal

wonder how those dunderheads in 1-AA ever thought there could be a playoff to decide it's champion?

__________________

LSUtiger327

+1 is a step in the right direction so i'm all for it. if the NCAA and college presidents have shown anything, it's that they fear change so hopefully installing a +1 is the baby step to a playoff.

__________________


Bleacher Report Profile

And the Valley Shook

"If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.....Unless you're a table."- Mitch Hedberg

TigerBait3

no

__________________

TheDude

I wish you had not gone on and on about it..

__________________
I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. That, or Duder. His Dudeness. Or El Duderino, if, you know, you're not into the whole brevity thing...

Cajunboy97

I agreed that it won't happen next year...and maybe this will be a stepping stone for the 8 teams playoff which will eventually become a 16 teams playoff in another 100+ years or so.
If you really think about it though, the +1 will be just as controversy as the bcs systems now. Picking the #2 team is just as debatable as the 3rd and 4th team (#7 and #8 would be slightly less controversy cuz they would have a slightly less chance of upsetting #1 and #2...slightly). 16 teams is the way to go, but I don't think even my great grand kids will get to see that.
Oh, and on a side note - if the +1 was implemented last season......USC would not have made it. It would have been:
OSU vs LSU
UF vs Meeechechoke
then UF vs LSU in the Championship game and of course LSU would take sweet revenge on the gators.
BUT USC would blow away Notre Damsel in the Rose Bowl and the freakin' retard AP would split the title again...just a thought.

Potted Plant

A +1 system won't end controversy. There will still be endless complaints and disagreements over how the 4 teams are picked and seeded. Who would you have picked last year, keeping in mind that Florida wasn't even the consensus #2 team and many people actually wanted a rematch of Ohio State and Michigan. If the first three are Ohio State, Michigan, and Florida (and you wouldn't even get agreement about THAT), who would be #4? Would it have been USC? LSU? Boise State?

Potted Plant

Personally, if we were picking 4 last year, I would have picked OSU, Florida, USC, and Boise. I think you simply HAVE to exclude teams that didn't win their conference. It's the only reasonable and OBJECTIVE way to really wittle down the teams to a manageable number to choose from. If people could at least agree on that criterion, I think a fair bit of the controversy would subside, at least as to a +1 system.

It simply stands to reason that if you are not the best team in your conference, you ought not even merit consideration as the best team in the country. I recognize that this will put good teams in some hard-luck situations, like with michigan last year who lost only one game, on the road, against a very good team, in a nail-biter. But I say "tough noogies". Lots of teams have unfavorable schedules or don't get the lucky bounce needed to win. It's part of the game.

__________________
http://www.andthevalleyshook.com

PURPLE TIGER

The top conferences (SEC, Big 12, Big 10) would probably be interested in a playoff format because they want to prove their argument on the field. Other conferences prefer having the title game decided by the media because they're afraid it's likely to be the only opportunity to win a title.

Obviously no credit is given for strength of schedule, actually playing a conference championship game, or getting routinely battered each week by top-quality opponents.

Nebraska used to play a weak schedule, win the Big 8, and when they occasionally defeated a Florida school in the Orange Bowl, the were automatically crowned champions due to their undefeated status. How many have they won since the Big 12 championship and BCS games began?

As good as USC is, they also benefit from the lack of a playoff system. Anybody that claims they play a tough schedule and get battered each week is simply dreaming. Unless they complete screw up, they can waltz right into the championship. In essence, they simply need to go through the motions and if they win one game at the end, they're the champs.

Although I would love to win more titles, I wouldn't want to downgrade our schedule just for a shot at the title. I've always believed "to be the best, you should beat the best". That means all season...not just one game.

__________________

Nutriaitch

The last polls before the bowl games last year had Oklahoma (Big XII champ) ranked above USC. This just adds to the controversy. 2 schools each champ of a Major conference, identical records, 1 gets in, 1 stays home. Also, Louisville (Big East champs, yes it is still a BCS conference) had fewer losses than either of those 2 schools. Another controversy tossed in the mix. And don't forget Notre Lame (who for whatever reason gets special auto bid to BCS) also had the same record as OU and USC. Yet another controversy.

This system won't fix anything. IMO it's not any better or worse than the current one. All they're doing is MOVING the arguement.

Other examples:

• In '04, 3 unbeatens (from big conferences) they all get in, then you have 4 more schools with 1 or fewer losses all looking for 1 spot.
• In '03, 3 1-loss teams get in, then EVERYONE ELSE in the top 10 had identical records.
• In '05, 2 unbeatens, then you have to go all the way to #17 to find a team with more than 2 losses (4 1-loss teams)
• In '02, you have the only season of the last 5 years with very little controversy. 2 unbeatens, then Iowa and Georgia each with only 1 loss. (maybe slight controversy with Boise being the only other 1-loss team).

In the last 5 seasons, the system would have really worked only once. So why is everyone so happy about this?

__________________

uscvball

Oh NO. There is a big, BIG problem. The most well known, most succesful, most beloved and revered team in all of college football history is not on board! I'm talking about the Irish of course.

You see Coach Weiss is a leader......a pathfinder, a true visionary. Why pursue any BCS bowl wins when you can absolutely OWN the Commander In Chief Trophy? He's on pace now to set the record. Wake up CLM! CCW is already 2-0. Honestly, what's the point in winning another NC when so many other teams have them now? That's what CCW is telling Irish boosters.

So CCW saw all the comments regarding +1 and he thought it was a direct hit on the Irish program. As you know, he's already added the Coast Guard to their schedule and the details of their game against the Salvation Army at HOME are almost worked out. To really boost their SOS and to satisfy that +1, he's contacted the government. There's a chance they'll be able to add the newest Div1 Team which will be a combined special forces team (Recon, Seals, Rangers, Delta Force) and that's AWAY. Yes, the Irish are back!

FWIW, I agree that many of the play off or +1 scenarios really just move the argument, not satisfy them.